This story about Norway mass murderer Anders Breivik claiming he could tell which of his targets looked like leftists got me thinking about something I’ve noticed as well: liberals and conservatives, at least in America, do seem to have a look specific to their ideology, and this look goes beyond just their style of dress. The faces of lefties and righties are, as a very general rule, different looking. It’s hard to pinpoint exactly how they differ; suffice to say, this is an inexact science, and whatever association there is between facial structure and politics is probably a weak one with plenty of overlap, and likely breaks down along race.

Nevertheless, there’s something there to the observation. Pressed to provide detail, I might say that leftist men look softer, have bigger eyes and fuller lips, and weaker jawlines. Righist men look tougher, have narrower, opaque eyes, thinner lips and heavier jawlines. The critical difference is in the eyes; the stand-out feature of lefties are their limpid, watery eyes, always looking on the verge of weeping. Visualize Barney Frank or Al Franken vs Clint Eastwood or Mitt Romney.

If you think this description of leftist men makes them seem more feminine or more intelligent, well… draw your own conclusions.

Here’s a pic of the guy Breivik thought looked like a rightie dude (foreground).

Oh, come on. This is worse than phrenology. Unless you’re talking having a chance to open fire on a man wearing a dusty T-shirt and a gimme cap, or a scarf-wearing, skinny jeans mincer.

[heartiste: where the fuck in this post did anyone say anything about opening fire on anyone, besides what was already contained in a link to a story about breivik? stop reading your own neuroses into what’s written here.]

A while ago there was a study (that I think you may have tweeted about yourself) saying that stronger (or more testosterone-laden?) men tended to be more conservative. If so, then I suppose there must also be something to the idea that right-wing men tend to look slightly more masculine.

Just the opposite, conservatives like competition and want people to earn their spot in the status hierarchy. Its leftists who like fixed status hierarchies or want to give positions of status and free goodies to people who dont deserve it because they are weak and lazy. Leftists openly hate competition and strength and want to eradicate that.

Hmm… We can assume that they’re both on the left, but background guy is wearing a hoodie (a sort of working-class solidarity gesture, even pre-Travon), while foreground guy is wearing a well-tailored blazer.

The guy behind him in the distance looks tougher and more right-wing to me. Maybe concept needs to be normalized for Euro vs North American types. Still, not sure a Timothy McVeigh-type borderline case is the best subject for testing this theory.

well, you know there are a lot of union-thug lefty guys out there. Whenever there’s a you-tube video of some older tea partier getting ganged up and on beaten by a group of UAW thugs, they’re pretty tough bluecollar guys. You know, for beating up old people.

Maybe those blue collar types are not libs but conservatives who’ve just been misaligned in their allegiances to their union pals.

Leftoids, whether black thugs or white antifa types, tend to be cowards. If they partake in violence, they prefer to vastly outnumber their targets. Anything less than a 3:1 advantage (2:1 if the target is weak-looking) will usually keep them at bay.

Well Corvinus, I just attended the funeral of one of your cowardly leftoids & union thugs out in Roseburg Oregon…..The 21 gun salute by the Marine color guard & his medals on display were quite impressive…..He had served with the famous 1st of the 9th; the 1st battalion, 9th Marines in the Ashau Valley….Ever heard of it?….. Didn’t think so tough guy……They suffered the highest casualty rate of any Marine battalion in USMC History…Look it up….

Union leadership, however, is a bastion of lefties & Jews marching in lesbian feminist parades and the like. They are as fucking guilty as the conservative powers that be for exporting American jobs and importing cheap labor. Unionizing a bunch of illegals is just about anti-union, and anti-American jobs as you can get.

union thugs and to a lesser extent black thugs are by disposition and psychologically conservative. They vote for their ever shrinking economic interests along with their pals, even though they have been badly repaid by the Democrats. Democracy at work….LOL.

I think a distinction needs to be made between the economic left and right and the social left and right.

Working class and union ‘thug’ types could most likely be described as social right but economic left. Think the National Front in France for an idea of this position. Or perhaps the ‘Old Labour’ parties in the UK, Canada and Australia.

For instance, I consider myself a conservative and am against neo-liberal economics as espoused by Republicans as I don’t think such policies are in the interests of Western peoples.

“UAW thugs, they’re pretty tough bluecollar guys”……Not what I see. I see a mob of large, soft, and cowardly bullies; exactly the kind of pussies I enjoyed hunting down and humiliating in High School. Nothing ever really changes.

Jesus, that’s awful. Breivik is a few carbs short of a loaf of bread. Obviously though, if you go to whole foods, you can tell who is a rightie or leftie. And this observation is not made from a perch of superiority, mostly, just that the lefties in SWPL land self-id pretty easily from their terrible diets and pained facial expressions. As for the pic of the spared guy, it’s a tad hollywood airbrushed to really get an idea of what he looks like in the real world. And a comparison of tea-party and OWS would be helpful when you look at the people of the same age groupings. Healthy versus pained and unhealthy.

I never seen a liberal tough guy. The only leftist tough guys I ever seen were comunists of the Stalinist variety – but then, it could be argued that they share a lot in common with the hard right wich makes the point valid.

Where I’m from, Stalinists are often brutish and a “conservative sort of commie”.

It’s a nasty secret in politics that there is no difference from a hard ‘lefty’ and a ‘hard’ righty. They are both leftists, i.e they want to use government enforce their world views. Gingrich isn’t a right winger nor is Rush isn’t a right wringer they. Real right wingers are the guys you see out in those militia camps out in the middle of nowhere.

Breivik has like a whole manifesto, he’s IIRC an atheist who appreciates judeo-christian society and hates that the left is using immigration to flood the angloshphere with a bunch of savages in order to, you know, have socialism forever.

The point being, he wanted to kill a bunch of lefties because they’re not only race-traitors but actively destroying western civilization. Does that make him an Ayn Rand open markets objectivist, small government right winger, a patriot with nonetheless liberal leanings, or just a loon?
The problem is that the left has made their project of repopulating Western societies with non-westerners who will ostensibly be more pliable to voting for government cheese forever sort of bullet proof by claiming that any criticism of unassimilated immigration is racist. They make this racism a hate crime, so there’s no legal way to really criticize the left or to stop the flood of outsiders into formerly heterogeneous societies. Hell, using the left’s own theories, this will create an illegal, violent resistance to the problem. So, Brev is just a monster of the left’s creation.

Undoubtedly true. I think there’s a reason why many gay men were regular liberal teenagers who got recruited. Overall, yes, I’d say that liberal guys seem to have a slightly faggy vibe about them, even if they prefer women.

And it’s not just for liberals versus conservatives. They say in Northern Ireland that they have a sixth sense for whether you’re Protestant or Catholic. Around here, there are sizable populations of Calvinists and Mormons. The Calvinists, while polite, have a certain hardness about their expressions, like they are keeping a shell around their inner natures. Many evangelical fundamentalists act more like robots than human beings, especially those who read and quote the Bible all the time and try to preach to you about Jesus. Meanwhile, Mormons act as if they’re constantly sedated, even though they don’t preach to you unless they’re on an actual mission. Mormon men sometimes get mistaken for fags; for some reason, the gay voice doesn’t appear to be stigmatized among them.

Eastwood yes, Romney? Big stretch there. Go to Drudge and look at that beta bitch Mitt with hand shoved deeply in his pocket. He’s one step away from letting a submissive puppy piss fly next to Rubio (Who also looks like a closet latino homo).

One thing I have noticed, though, is voices. Try skimming at random through the radio dial and identifying the political views of the speaker from just a few words, and it’s pretty much infallible. It’s partly register (conservatives are deeper), partly tone (conservatives speak with the chest rather than the nose), and partly something else I can’t quite put my finger on, but you *always* know when you’re on NPR — they just have NPR voices.

Most people in Hollywood are closet conservatives. They carry the public facade of leftism to suit career needs. Very few openly conservative actors and directors get work out there, and those that do are talented and don’t make big deals about their views – like say a Rosie O’Donnel or Susan Surandon.

Is it much of a stretch to simply say better looking people are more likely to be conservative? You have to eliminate Hollywood as an outlier, of course, and adjust for age, race & gender & maybe keep in mind that trial attorneys simply vote their wallets…

re: The mask is slipping off white elite hate for rural whites. This is the true battle line in America. http://t.co/bRfCvyX3

Those elite whites with names like “Rubin” really do hate non-elite whites. This reminds of that segment Bill Maher did on Mississippi residents:

It’s hard to tell from watching this video but Mississippi is 37% black, it has the highest black population of any state in the country. Could this be why it is also the poorest state in America? But from watching this video you’d think it was all the white rural hicks’ fault that their state was so poor. DWL Pelosi didn’t talk to ANY blacks and she clearly cherry-picked the whites she talked to.

This is the power of frame at work. Whoever controls the media controls the frame.

“Whoever controls the media controls the frame.” You got that right. On the Daily Show last night they had a segment with Herman Cain and they made a complete fool out of him through editing and the entire premise itself. Probably to inoculate him as a potential VP prospect for Romney.

All those fellows she interviewed and took out of context had jobs and a can do attitude. All were contributing members of society and the salt of the earth. I have nothing but the deepest respect for the working man in our society. Intellectuals are usually pussies with oversized egos and unoriginal ideas. Pelosi did a spot interviewing blacks in NYC a couple of days later and all of them were collecting unemployment and said Whitey owed it to them as payback for slavery. Maher only reluctantly allowed it on his show.

Breivik himself is stone cold evidence for physiognomy. He looks like a heartless, merciless but cerebral killer. One look at the guy is enough for you to know he could never be anything but a ruthless murderer, and his eyes give me chills.

If he were an actor, the only role he could get would be an SS officer.

From the sound of things, he had his nose sharpened and his chin cut. Regardless, even before then, his eyes convey a lack of heart or soul. The plastic surgery just made him look more like a Terminator.

[heartiste: i’m surprised the norwegian courts deemed breivik sane. is it even possible to be simultaneously utterly evil and sane? i would think a degree of insanity (that is, a significant deviation from the human psychological norm) is necessary to become stone cold evil. note: i still support the death penalty for insane criminals.]

The definition of insanity is inherently subjective or at least cultural.
Homosexuality was considered a disease in the 30’s.

I wouldn’t go as far as Thomas Szasz in “The Myth of Mental Illness”,
but he has some kind of point. Back in the 1500s, heresy was considered
effectively as some kind of disease (cured with red hot irons or similar motivational gadgets). Clearly, the pain of some hours of barbecue is like nothing compared to the pain in hell from perdition, so the tongs were
for the patient’s own good.

More commonly, is it truly a medical conditioning needing drugs that some boys just don’t want to sit still at a desk for many hours a day???
Or is it those that can put up with it that are bizarre? We evolved to
run around on the steppe whacking antelopes – and occasionally each other.

People who speak to God are considered pious, in our culture. People who hear voices (divine or otherwise) are considered nuts.

I think he’s a bit delusional but sane. My only criticism of Breivik is that he shot up some pretty hot looking ass. I wold have taken them into slavery instead and made them my concubines. Otherwise, he’ll be the new Horst Wessel in 30 years. Most of us here would agree with his writings and ideas on multi-culturalism. I predict that Europe will awaken one day and realize what it has done and then there will be a right wing reaction that will be out of all proportion because it will have come much later than it should have.

[heartiste: i’m surprised the norwegian courts deemed breivik sane. is it even possible to be simultaneously utterly evil and sane? i would think a degree of insanity (that is, a significant deviation from the human psychological norm) is necessary to become stone cold evil.]

The psychopath is criminally sane, because he knows that society will consider what he did wrong, even though he himself cannot feel it was wrong. To the general public, the psychopath is insane. This continues to cause much confusion.

To me he gives me the isolated loner vibe, but not the outright gaunt goofy aspie look. Just a normal(ish) guy whose circumstances wound him up in isolation, where his views really begin to stew. After that point, the most normal people may detach themselves from the social process and become zealots.

Gentlemen, I must jump daintily in at this juncture and tell you that Ghitis heifer is the dumba**. In my prime I had men drive or fly hundreds of miles for the sake of my conversation alone with no poontang in the offing. Up the ante and they would crawl through flaming briars for a piece of intelligent, funny, man-affirming pink. I am now old and married ( to a younger man-heh-heh…) and mommy to an adorable redheaded Viking son. That Frida person just doesn’t get it. What kind of memories will she live on when all she can do is rock on the porch?

I think there is a chicken and egg problem here. As one poster pointed out, testosterone may have an effect, but lifestyle also influences looks. Using stereotypes, a conservative dude is more likely to work/have worked physical labor jobs and is going to look harder (in the face and body) than the doughy, round faced kid going to school living off a diet of pizza and beer. As people grow up and get more square and with age, they tend to slide towards conservative values as well.

That peace symbol, did you know it is semaphore?
I.e. signalling flags, two flags spell out a letter. In this case,
starting from the center, the up and down flags spell D,
the 45 deg hangdowns spell N, for Nuclear Disarmament,
I think that particular movement started in the UK.

You can edit in small short vertical bars crossing the
angled bars, and hey presto you can make it look
like a B52.

Glenn Greenwald dedicates the entire first chapter of his book on Republican Myths to their faux-machismo since John Wayne. You know draft-dodgers and and airport-bathroom-cock-suckers posing as Fighter Pilots and Homophobes. Love to know your thoughts on it.

Because those guys aren’t real right wingers, they are left wingers of a different source. Is the asshole that wants to have the cops kick down your doors for smoking pot any different than the asshole that wants to have the cops kick down your doors because you said something that offended the oppressed classes? Answer? No.

Actually, a “rightie”. But it is complicated. Being that the US has only
two parties that matter (sorry but that’s how it is), there is a lot of
room inside each party. Neocons, Libertarians, Cultural conservatives
all live – not always harmoniously – inside the “right” i.e. Republican tent.
Hollywood elites and hardworking factory and construction workers,
the latter often cultural conservatives, live inside the “left” i.e.
Democratic tent, again not always harmoniously. How many
working stiff would have wanted to work on the Canada to Gulf
pipeline making 50 bucks an hour – beats unemployment?

But, if you focus on the economy (most but far from all people do),
then Ron Paul is a rightie. Of course, he does not fit with the Neocon
war machine……

White Knighters like some of those listed are not really conservative.

Meanwhile guys who vote liberal to maybe keep themselves from being arrested for doing a 17 year old (who may or may not have said she was 18 – doesn’t matter to the courts), don’t count as “softies”.

The US media has deliberately confused American men about what constitutes liberal and conservative.

We need a third party system and that will only come from a constitutional amendment to force run-off elections when nobody gets more than 50% of the vote in any elections.

France is actually doing it right. Sarkozy did not lose the election on Sunday by 1% to that socialist freak which is what would have happened using America’s non-democratic, unrepresentative plurality voting system. No, the French people get a second chance in two weeks to see what a majority of them want.

Sarkozy is now, properly, groveling to Marine le Pen for her 20% of the electorate. She will announce on May 1 whether or not she wants her people to help Sarkozy keep the presidency or not. She’s now the most powerful broker in France.

If only Ron Paul could effectively force Romney to grovel in terms of his VP pick, etc over the next 6 months in the US. Imagine if our elections were based on the runoff system.

@Anonymous
“We need a third party system and that will only come from a constitutional amendment to force run-off elections when nobody gets more than 50% of the vote in any elections.”

Roger that. Add the sensible rule of “no representation without
taxation” so that only net payers get to vote, and the US (and most
Western countries) would straighten out in a very short time.
But it won’t happen without some kind of crash coming first.

“France is actually doing it right. Sarkozy did not lose the election on Sunday by 1% to that socialist freak which is what would have happened using America’s non-democratic, unrepresentative plurality voting system. No, the French people get a second chance in two weeks to see what a majority of them want.

Sarkozy is now, properly, groveling to Marine le Pen for her 20% of the electorate. She will announce on May 1 whether or not she wants her people to help Sarkozy keep the presidency or not. She’s now the most powerful broker in France.

If only Ron Paul could effectively force Romney to grovel in terms of his VP pick, etc over the next 6 months in the US. Imagine if our elections were based on the runoff system.”

Jews and Germans selected for your right wingers… peoples almost biologically leftist and law obsessed. Idiotic right wingers who look like soft handed no chin having water boys, the typical guys that followed what the biggest baddest legit mother fuckers were putting down.

Half the people on your leftist list are people that work in an industry that now promotes “non-threatening” masculine males that will always cook dinner, pick up the kids, and kill the bad guys. Sanitized and safe alphas full of knowledge and wisdom. The female fantasy.

As far as their political leanings I’ve heard Matt Damon speak on behalf of teachers (his mother is one), and I’ve heard him speak about politics, the guy is a right winger in spirit but it would be career suicide if he ever said, “I prefer sleeping with white women over black women.” Unlike the cad that banged Jennifer Anniston and Jessica Simpson who pulled that shit off. I would guess those lefties you list are closer to nihilistic hedonists deep down. Actors only scream and flail for things close to their hearts, or when it’s expected of them. Otherwise they look out for themselves and their own careers.

Musicians do ridiculous stupid shit every day that would destroy the careers of A list actors or comedians who must fit a certain role. It’s a difference in how the media is consumed. You can show me a dozen “leftist” actors and funny men and tell me they aren’t conservative in Jewish Hollywood. I’ll show you a dozen guys that are really happy just being friends with hot chicks. Show me a dozen media shills and politicians claiming to be conservative, I’ll show you a dozen homosexuals and Ivy League indoctrinated manginas who are selling true conservatives down the river. I probably can use all the same pictures.

This could be proven or disproven pretty simply. Get 100 photos of male faces, each one rated 1 to 5 Left to Right based on a simple survey. Show the 100 photos to a large and random sample of people and see if their assignment of political views is better than random. I am sure it would be.

Of course there’s a “look.” There are also many exceptions to it, and many people who are in an unidentifiable middle. I think it’s generally easier to spot a Left winger than a Right winger.

Check out the photos of Brevik’s victims. Many are clearly Leftist/Liberal. I think it’s significantly easier to tell in the case of the boys than the girls. If this were just a bunch of kids at a Lefty indoctrination camp (which it was) we’d all laugh at how beta many of the boys in these photos are.

This Utoya camp seemed like a good spot for PUAs. Yeah, most girls were ugly but there would be virtually no competition for the blonde hotties. I hope there weren’t any such casualties of PUAs only interested in the girls (and not in the leftist dogma).

Which makes me wonder if seducing the hot leftist girls into accepting our far-right ideology wouldn’t be a better strategy than Breivik’s. If the hotties are far-right, then the leftist beta male orbiters will automatically switch sides.

Also, I notice Breivik was truly alpha, he didn’t spare the attractive girls. Only a true alpha male can murder attractive girls in cold blood.

Apply that to game. It would seem that a “liberal” does better out in the field, running game, tasting a variety of women, whereas a conservative would value stability found in institutions such as the military and marriage, places where nobody challenges his philosophical worldview, where he doesn’t need to deal with shifting emotional landscapes. The family values platform of the modern mainstreet Republican fits very nicely into this schematic.

It’s possible that this difference in amygdala size is reflected in facial features, but I doubt it. I’ve known too many exceptions. But a good discussion nonetheless at the Chateau.

[heartiste: the liberal love of change is a chimera. it’s a false assumption that change is necessarily good, used in service to the liberal’s eternally hungry moral ego that never stops needing external validation. WWII brought a lot of change that people could have done without. so has the multicult project. check your premises.]

Awesome, if you really belive and put stock in what pols say for trying to get the head honcho job, then you can find diamond in a goat’s ass.

1. Apparently the people of Chappaqua, NY a stronghold town of democrats and the residence of one Bill Clinton are really pissed because there is section 8 diversity moving into their non racist neighborhoods ( I loved the comments on wherever i read that news… one comment went like ” We are not racist, we vote 95% democrats, why are they doing this to people who have worked their life to get this standard of living …. I Lolled so much i thought i died). why dont they just enjoy the change?.

2. And as far as ” real american ” go it means americans in flyover country as opposed to the coastal liberals. It was not an anti immigrant statement , afterall the repub candidate was john mccain… lover of laraza, besides what were they supposed to say ” real chinese people “. The fact that what you read into a comment like ” real american ” goes to show your mindset and where it’s at, you bascially have a template in your mind already setup and then cherrypick and elaborate and hear what you wanna hear.

The conservative brain exists in a constant state of fear because of its enlarged amygdala.

My favorite line: “The researchers also found that “greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex” – a region in the brain that is believed to help people manage complexity.”

I’ve felt this for a long time. A liberal brain can hold two opposing ideas without demeaning or discarding either position. This is simply impossible for a conservative brain.

whatever gets you through the day. Of course a liberal brain is going to hold opposing ideas. One, their ideas are gibberish, and two, current-truth demands a memory hole through which inconvenient facts and ideas are jettisoned.

Conservatives showed much stronger skin responses to negative images, compared with the positive ones. Liberals showed the opposite. And when the scientists turned to studying eye gaze or “attentional” patterns, they found that conservatives looked much more quickly at negative or threatening images, and [then] spent more time fixating on them.

So, conservatives react more to danger while liberals are sheeple being trained to ignore the sad. I guess your big, liberal braininess doesn’t extend past reading a headline (a headline coddled together to maximize your liberal happy centers…to fixate on the positive (in your mind)). Essentially, you cite a study showing that libs focus on things that make them feel good by focusing on the feel-good title of the study while ignoring the overreach of the study’s alleged conclusions.

[heartiste: this comports with my analysis of the underlying psychology of the two major ideologies: liberals are naive novelty seekers, and this manifests as a (claimed) love of open borders and diversity, and a penchant for risk and undue optimism in the face of evidence to the contrary. conservatives are commonsensical guardians, and that manifests as a wariness of untested outsiders and a respect for the tried and true. neither ideology, if restrained from its worst excesses, is necessarily “bad”; logically, if liberalism or conservatism were really bad and fitness-reducing, they would have been selected out of the human gene pool by now. no, it’s probably fairer to say that in an environment of reduced threats and true mental, emotional and psychological equality between men (such as might be seen in a small hunter-gatherer tribe), liberalism is the more “fit” ideology; whereas in a threatening, unstable environment where human traits, both positive and negative, between people and races are unequally distributed, conservatism is the more “fit” frame of perception.

anyhow, it’s very easy to reframe an oily, snarky leftie’s argument to make his ideology sound retrograde and stupid, like what anon and myself just did above.]

Here’s a study that you can wrap your liberal mind around, but since it’s “negative” your brain will just filter it out. It matches my observation, that liberals live in a world defined by their own prejudices, that what they don’t know could fill a library:

What Haidt found is that conservatives understand liberals’ moral values better than liberals understand where conservatives are coming from. Worse yet, liberals don’t know what they don’t know; they don’t understand how limited their knowledge of conservative values is. If anyone is close-minded here it’s not conservatives.

“no, it’s probably fairer to say that in an environment of reduced threats and true mental, emotional and psychological equality between men (such as might be seen in a small hunter-gatherer tribe), liberalism is the more “fit” ideology; whereas in a threatening, unstable environment where human traits, both positive and negative, between people and races are unequally distributed, conservatism is the more “fit” frame of perception.”

Hence, in the 1960s we had highly-liberal uber-white Minnesota of Hubert Humphrey versus the conservative Jim Crow South of George Wallace.

From the link: “Most societies are divided into a party that wants change (the more liberal party) and one that is afraid of change (the conservatives). The liberal party is generally more intellectual and the conservative party is more anti-intellectual.”

Where does that leave reactionaries? Anarchocapitalists?
LIbertarians? And various other non-traditional groups, now
loosely considered “right” or “left”?

Change can be good and change can be be bad, but neophobia is what defines conservatism.

[heartiste: neophobia is meaningless semantics libs invent to assuage their egos. here’s one i could use right back at them: wisdomphobia — the fear of common sense and the fear of wisdom to distinguish threats from harmless novelty.]

[heartiste: animals, not humans. to apply an animal term to human ideological proclivity, and to do so sophistically so that it sounds like a negative trait rather than an adaptive one, is a perfect example of liberal ego assuaging. keep in mind that most of these “ethologists” — a subcommunity of sociologists — are flaming libs apt to couch discoveries in ways that make their side seem saintly.]

Are you claiming that humans and other animals don’t vary in their degree of neophobia and neophilia?

[no. this is what i’m saying: neophilia is not necessarily an unadulterated good, as you tacitly implied in your original comment because you are a flaming lib with your own biases at work. neophilia could just as easily be a synonym for “commonsenseophobia”.]

Are you claiming that openness doesn’t influence political affiliation?

[modern civilization aids the neophiliac liberal mindset because most natural threats are perceived to have been removed. but liberals, if we are to judge them by their actions, are not as neophilic as they, and you, like to claim. they aren’t scrambling to live amongst the vibrancy that they profess to love so much.]

There are studies that show how various phenotypes relate to political affiliation. Jason, Chris, and I referenced some of them. Post data or GTFO. Just kidding. Who needs science when you can just engage in self-congratulatory speculation? Research is for manginas and eggheads. It’s more efficient to use your laser-like masculine intuition. Real men know that they can trust whatever their hamster tells them.

Who do you think is more risk averse, those who identify as right wing or those who identify as left wing? Or is the very concept of risk aversion another product of the libtard conspiracy?

Risk averse? Clearly, liberals are more risk averse. (This is not a value judgement< we can argue about what is the "right" amount of risk averseness).
Conservatives join armies. Conservatives do he-manly (and thus at least
somewhat dangerous) things. Liberals worry about the possible hazard of some part per trillion contaminant, and a string of other very low probability
risks.

The link and the study are underwhelming. In this case, the underlying hidden variable (the usually hidden variable is the “healthy wealthy and wise” variable, but not in this case) is familiy situation.

The question only really applies to people with jobs, for starters. And family situation is crucial. A father or mother, married with three kids and a mortgage are likely Republican (statistically, and regardless of what is the chicken and
what is the egg). And in most cases, their financial situation is stretched, so that a loss of a large percentage of income is almost catastrophic (or at least so pervceived).

A recent collega grad just starting out in his/her first job with as yet only
modest financial obligations is likely to be Democrat, and has more
tolerance for risk.

It’s just more pathetic lefty back-patting. Sure, you’re so smart and open to new things, except fracking. Remember, the democrat party’s biggest voting block are inner city thugs living on government cheese. Try to round that with the smugs’ general attitude that the dnc is composed entirely of the cheese section of Whole Foods.

Neophobia? Please. Useful idiots may love change or they don’t but they still vote for bad people with bad ideas.

1. It’s also a semantic game used for a what looks like a politically motivated hatchet job. A. One can therefore argue that according to this study that liberal amygdylas aren’t developed enough into the mature giant amygdylas of conservative. B. Conservatives are more decisive and have a better sens eof danger than the other hapless idiot crowd.
2. The publisher of this piece seems to have written books titled ” The Myth of Culture: Why We Need a Genuine Natural Science of Societies ” and ” Kindness In A Cruel World: The Evolution Of Altruism ” which are clues to his own political leanings and possible reason behind the article and it’s wordings.

As usual the comments tell you more than the article does.

#1

” It could as well be the opposite or something quite different
Submitted by Danniel on April 19, 2011 – 3:07pm.
The whole thing with the amygdala is not so simple. Larger amygdala correlates also with “social” stuff. According to some studies, one could reasonably make the opposite guess, that larger amygdalas are associated with liberalism:

Amygdala volume and social network size in humans

We found that amygdala volume correlates with the size and complexity of social networks in adult humans. An exploratory analysis of subcortical structures did not find strong evidence for similar relationships with any other structure, but there were associations between social network variables and cortical thickness in three cortical areas, two of them with amygdala connectivity. These findings indicate that the amygdala is important in social behavior.

At the same time, the correlation of fearfulness and size (in contrast with activity) is relatively weak, and more strong in girls (presumably also on women, and women don’t seem to make the bulk of conservativeness, if I’m not mistaken, women are more likely to be liberal):

Research into the neural underpinnings of fear and fear-related pathology has highlighted the role of the amygdala. For instance, bilateral damage to the amygdaloid complex is associated with decreased appreciation of danger and recognition of fear in humans, whereas enlarged amygdala volume is associated with internalizing syndromes. It is unknown whether amygdala volume and fearfulness are related in the absence of pathology. We examined the correlation between normal fearfulness and amygdala morphology in 116 healthy children and adolescents (60 boys, 56 girls, age 7–17 years). Fearfulness was measured using the parent ratings on the Pediatric Behavior Scale and amygdala volumes were determined by manual tracing. We found a positive correlation between right amygdala volume in girls (r = 0.29). This relationship was more robust and present bilaterally when analyses were limited to girls with a positive nuclear family history of depression (for left r = 0.63; for right r = 0.58). In boys there was no significant relationship which may suggest that biological mechanisms differ between sexes. Given the role of enlarged amygdala volume in pathology, these findings may indicate that variation in amygdala morphology marks susceptibility to internalizing disorders.

“Go to the Study
Submitted by Peps on June 22, 2011 – 6:01am.
Has anyone bothered to go to the study itself? I’m a graduate student in biostatistics, and the conclusions restated here by Dr. Barber are abysmal.

The actual study concluded that liberals have more grey matter in the anterior cingulate cortex and conservatives have more in the right amygdala. This quite likely reflects structural changes from learned opinion, not a cause of opinion.

The predominance of grey matter in the ACC may mean more tolerance for reaching no firm conclusions, the same in the RA may mean more suspicion. In fact, the p values for the RA data (p=.048) were very nearly null in the second analysis of cases, so the predominance of grey matter in the RA for conservatives is questionable at best.

The casual suggestion by the study authors was that liberals may show more tolerance for a lack of a firm conclusion on a subject (conservatives could call this wishy-washy). The other suggestion was that conservatives may show more suspicion of threat (liberals could call this fear). Neither conclusion (wishy-washy or fear) is scientifically supported by this study. In fact, the authors then go on to caution that both possible “emotions” come from multiple centers, not one section so no conclusion could be drawn from the predominance of grey matter in a couple of limited brain sections.

The problem here is that Dr. Barber clearly has a political axe to grind and has abandoned every scientific parameter to draw these conclusions. I’m a social liberal and fiscal conservative, so I do not have a commensurate axe. I am, however, appalled that a professional would resort to such absurd over-simplifications and misleading conclusions in order to sway public opinion, and I am further appalled that a generally respected publication would print them. ”

3. You enjoy change because currently change is happening along with material abundance and you are most prolly close to a class who have an abundance of material things and some amount of future certainity, once that abundance of luxxry starts to go down goodluck and pat yourself on your back.

Changing tried and true traditions at random is bad enough. But liberals go 180 degrees from working models. Traditions weren’t just invented by evil white men who wanted to do everything wrong, they came to be via troubleshooting problems. Now we’re going to have to do a LOT of troubleshooting to return to our former traditions. Thanks liberals.

If you take the Spenglerian view of history, liberalism makes some sense. Think of it as assisted suicide for civilizations. If Western Christian Civilization is doomed to die then liberalism serves to make it as quick and (hopefully) painless as possible. Rather than trying to save WCC we should be creating white barbarians. If we are doomed to be plundered by virile barbarians as Rome was, I’d rather they be white like the barbarians that sacked Rome.

When I was liberal, I was fearful of smart conservatives. Now that I’ve gotten to know some of them, I realize they aren’t a threat to me. I still find a smart conservative more intimidating than a smart liberal, though.

What about people lilke me? My fear is of ever-increasing government, not just in the US. My hope is that this will reverse to the level of say 1900. Faint hope. OR, to find a country more to my liking, that will take me in. Maybe realistic.

I’m grateful for people like you. Where the United States is today is pretty discouraging. I think if anyone can straighten it out, though, it will smart right wingers (as my liberal friends like to call you).

As to the US straightening out, the hope is fairly faint, until and unless we first hit a major crisis. Well, the crisis will in all likelyhood arrive, but I don’t know what form it will take, or how deep it will be. If it becomes deep enough (whatever level that is), major resets are likely to happen, but not necessarily for the better. Time will tell.

Right now we are in the beginning of the phase “find some money as yet unconfiscated, and grab it”, by the authorities. That is sure to get worse
as panic sets in. Watch pension funds getting grabbed, in one form or another. For starters.

In the case of totally pussified leftist men who grovel at the feet of womynz, homosexuals, and minoritites in general, I would agree that they are generally less manly than the average man. Things are different with the union-type leftist, however. These guys are often very tough both in looks and attitude. Of course, the union types having a fighting attitude; the social leftist has an attitude of self-blame and submission. He accepts that he’ll have to surrender a portion of power — I’m writing from the perspective of the social leftist himself (herself?) now — for the sake of “social justice”.

There are also men who have gone from fervent leftist to fervent rightist or vice versa. Admittedly, these men are in the minority.

If differences in appearance do exist in this regard, I believe it is between leftists and rightists of the social ilk rather than the economic.

Another observation. We, as men, need to remember that the male face that we presume is attractive to women isn’t always the same male face that women find attractive.

I tested this once. I took an LA Galaxy program featuring pictures of twenty-five soccer players, and asked my male friend a question: Which guy was the best-looking? (No homo). Turns out we both chose the same guy. Then I gave it to the two girls we were with and asked them the same question. Turns out they both picked the same guy, but a different one from us.

The men’s choice: A defender with big eyes and soft features.
The women’s choice: A striker with dark brows. The classic high T look.

It was a revelation. We two fellas had picked the guy that looked most like a girl. Them two ladies had picked the guy that looked … like a guy’s guy.

So I am skeptical of my judgment regarding what male faces women find attractive. It seems that I’m biased to the very core of my genetic sequence.

(By the way, this was before Beckham joined the squad. All four of us probably would’ve agreed on him, had he been present.)

Thinking of some guys has me agreeing with what you’re saying; thinking of others has me disagreeing with it.

The pussified leftists who grovel before wemynz, gays, and minorities in general, tend to be less masculine than the average man. Just check out that ‘Dear Women’ video on Youtube (although even there, believe it or not, some of the guys look quite masculine). On the other hand, union types are often tough both in looks and nature. Of course, the latter have a fighting nature. Leftists of the social type have a submissive, self-admonishing character: they blame themselves for the failures of minorities whose ass cheeks their lips are super glued to, and they’re eager to forfeit their “power and privilege” for the sake of “social justice”.

There are also men who political beliefs change. Admittedly, these men are in the minority.

I’d say if such a difference in appearance does exist, it is between leftists and rightists along the social axis rather than the economic one.

Uhuh. No. Most leftists are NOT willing to give up any power: they
just want to redistribute it from others with at least some power
to themselves – all of course in the name of helping the poor
oppressed whomevers.

I wouldn’t put more stock in this than you can attribute to ethnic predilection. You basically described a scotch Irish man in the post, who settled most of the conservative areas in the country over the past 200 years.

I’m pretty right wing. Although my right is more like the New Right type right. However, my personal version of the New Right has a heavy, heavy dose of de Maistre and the other counter-Enlightenment/counter-Reformation thinkers thrown in there.

Left handed. Although, I really only write with my left hand. A lot of us lefties are like that.

The Liberal party here in the Netherlands is not seen left but on the right side of the political spectrum.
So far for left and right.

I have seen assumptions that right wing guys have more masculine features in their face ? haha, ever seen a picture of Geert Wilders ? Our most right winged politician over here ? I would not call him masculine but perhaps that’s my perception.

And you know what ? Its always the same with these kind of discussions:
People try to devide the world in groups for conviniance but even if there was prove about what Breivik states about left/right features its still useless. There are always exceptions so it doesn’t tell you anything about the person you meet tomorrow on the street.

“The politically conservative preference cluster draws a larger
constellation of obtained spouse characteristics. Specifically, the
interviewers tended to rate the wives of men who preferred politically
conservative mates as submissive, ingenuous, unassuming,
not dominant, not calculating, and not ambitious. In contrast
to this somewhat weak portrait, husbands of women who preferred
politically conservative spouses appeared to be somewhat
low in tolerance, warmth, laziness, and femininity, and described
themselves as somewhat cold, quarrelsome, and aloof. Their wives
described them as relatively dominant, and the interviewers described
them as low in submissiveness. Interestingly, those husbands
also appeared to be relatively tall and heavy.”

SWPL’s?
“Interesting sex differences also emerged in the correlates of
the artistic-intelligent preference cluster. Men who preferred artistic-
intelligent wives appeared to have wives who scored high
on self-acceptance, ambitiousness, autonomy, and masculinity,
and low on neuroticism. In marked contrast, wives who preferred
artistic-intelligent husbands appeared to have husbands who
scored high on EPQ Neuroticism, and were described (and described
themselves) as somewhat lazy, quarrelsome, emotional,
feminine, and arrogant. Thus preferences for an artistic-intelligent
mate appear to have strikingly different implications for
men and women in their obtained mate, particularly on the neuroticism-
stability dimension.”

Evangelicals/Religious right?
“Men who preferred religious wives had mates who tended to
score high on making a good impression, agreeable, and unassuming
(the latter deriving from the interview context), and low
on sensation seeking, laziness, quarrelsomeness, and alcohol
consumption. Similarly, women who preferred religious husbands
tended to have husbands who were rated as agreeable, warm,
ingenuous, unassuming, and not arrogant. However, these husbands
also tended to score high on dominance, responsibility,
self-control, and achievement via conformance, which is suggestive
of a stronger or more forceful portrait than that conveyed
by the wives.”

Housewife=nice and feminine, househusband=kitchenbitch
“Fewer significant correlations were found between domestic
mate preferences and characteristics of obtained spouse, particularly
for the obtained husbands. The wives of men who preferred
domestic wives tended to score high on scales that were suggestive
of warmth, agreeableness, submissiveness, and femininity, which
was perhaps precisely what these men wanted. In contrast, these
features did not covary with wive’s preferences for a domestic
husband. The few correlates that were significant suggest that
such husbands are low on dominance and ambition but do not
tend to differentially possess the warm and agreeable attributes
seen in the wives of husbands who preferred domestic mates.”

Left and right change over time. Lefties in Hemingway’s day were a lot more manly than the ones today. You wouldn’t see a lot of SWPLs getting out of their soft armchairs at Starbuck’s to go fight in a civil war in a foreign country. Or pick up baseball bats and beat up scabs during a strike. Over the last 50 years our elites have done a remarkable job using identity politics, i.e. NAMs, feminists and gays, to rip the white working class away from the left, to turn the left effeminate and completely ineffectual at pursuing any real economic change.

Well said Peter. I was thinking something similar. There’s a huge difference between the effeminate whiny liberal that this blog undertands as the archetypal leftist figure and how things were at the turn of the last century in the US, the time of Sacco and Vanzetti, when communists and anarchists were actually fighting passionately for better working conditions and the dream of a world without exploitation.

Yes, yes, agreed to both of these. When I make statements defending liberals, I’m thinking of historical liberals — open-minded people seeking economic and social rights for the masses, such as Garibaldi — NOT the pansies and whiny manginas and angry shejaws being discussed here.

I dislike these types of modern leftists just as much as the troglodytes and John Birchers who unfortunately sometimes post here do.

And to all you guys who boast of your conservative bona fides, you’re weak sauce compared to historical conservatives. A true, to-the-bone conservative — see my post about amygdala and fear above — can’t even handle public debate and wouldn’t be on these boards; it’s too threatening to his worldview. See Metternich, Bush (who screened out dissenters from his rallies), etc.

Screening out – maybe. But Obama screens in, and prefers to give speeches to hand-picked supporters. This is the one and only time
he becomes passably charismatic, working a hand-picked crowd
and building some kind of report – much like a good comedian,
except this is tragedy, then farce.

Yesterdays liberals are today’s reactionaries. I can clearly see Garibaldi going to gay clubs with a butt plug in his ass cheering on for more Morrocons to come in and take the place of the Italian masses so they can have kebab shop at at the Colosseum and hookah bars at Italian universities and other aspects of diversity which are all so Italian.

You’d probably call me a Bircher from just reading a couple of my comments elsewhere but I think if we sat down, drank all night and chased pussy you’d think differently.

Left/Right is sort of reforming. Who knows where we’ll all end up.

The thing is, there is something on a site like Heartiste drawing us all together. There is definitely more ideological freedom (not to mention freedom to post) at a place like this than there is at the Huffington Post. The “right” is fracturing and new factions are forming and crystallizing while the “left” remains ossified and conformist.

The liberals of the past, starting from Vico, moving thru Rosseau, the early anarchists (Proudhon, Sorel and co.) and coming all the way down to the early union types were a different breed. They were more like communitarians. It’s my contention that those of us on the right (and right-leaning like Heartiste seems to be) are rediscovering the a combination of moral austerity and economic liberalism that is the essence of communitarianism.

There does seem to be a libertarian faction trying to cling to our “movement” and obtain ideological hegemony but most of us (even those of us who are economically successful like myself) have seen thru this position for the farce that it is and rejected this. This doesn’t mean we’ve embraced political correctness, it just means we’ve rejected to actual legislative excesses of the Social Darwinists – despite understanding their position and agreeing that with the underlying genetics.

1. so how did that go?, seems like the correct ideological side screwed them over.
2. There is no such thing socioeconomic class in the most realist sense, This ever going class warfare concept is a result of civilizationl decay where inter communal conflicts can’t be mitigated and taken care of in a more harmonious, seamless, low stress way as is done in more traditional culture. These traditional cultural template is itself the antithesis of socioeconomic class based worldview and culture, Class warfare is a very western concept which has almost zero relevance elsewhere. Socioeconomic classes at each other throats are great if you wanna have a suicidal civilization.

A world without exploitation would be one where labor unions in countries and areas of business command higher salaries just because more capital is invested. This is exploitation of capital by labor. For more details on this, see the wonderful book “The Sovereign Individual” by James Dale Davidson and William Rees-Mogg, put ca 1997.

This makes sense. Rightist men are high-T thus are more prone to risk-taking and are stronger and sturdier so they can absorb the effects of risk-taking. Since risk-taking is a sign of low fear it stands to reason that such men prefer to go at it alone instead of relying on help from others, i.e. Conservatism/Libertarianism. By the same token, leftist men are lowish-T thus they aren’t particularly prone to risk-taking and generally weaker so they more likely to rely on the help on others, i.e. Liberalism/Socialism.

However, today those low-T, risk-averse men become the computer nerds and chemical engineers who currently rake in high salaries, which are awarded because those skills are most highly prized in today’s vast technocracy.

Funny. I worked for 30-odd years as a computer engineer in Southern California. And, among those who expressed any political opinion
(about half), the loosely defined conservatives outnumbered the equally loosely defined liberals about 4 to 1. Curiously, this does not seem to be the case in Northern California.

I think this association between leftism and femininity in men has grown much stronger since the ascendency of the new left. The old school, masculine left that wanted to crack the skulls of kulaks was not staffed with weak-jawed nancy boys. These people believed they were fighting to improve the lot of the white working class man, something plenty of masculine men could get behind. There was an alliance between masculine working class men and softer intellectual types. The intellectual types found more pathetic and easily manipulated clients in women and minorities, however, and the left (at least for whites) become more feminine than probably any movement in history.

For Christ’s sake. This is a place where pretty lies perish … and so must perish the “straight right-winger” and “liberal homosexual” meme.

Find two rocks. Go to DC. Throw one in the air, and you’ll hit a closeted homosexual white man who identifes as conservative Republican (100% guaranteed to happen if you stand in Dupont Circle). Then walk yourself across the country to LA. Throw the other rock. You’ll hit a straight liberal guy with tons of game, who’s probably not white, and who sinks his dick into more 23-year-old aspiring actress cooch than you can ever dream of.

But the public face of conservatism mostly seems to consist of closeted gays or betas. Limbaugh is probably as alpha as they get, and he’s an overweight pill popper who pays for Dominican chicks to have sex with him.

[heartiste: this isn’t an ideological issue. it’s a male one. a safe working assumption is that all famous men, whether of the left or right, are likely getting their extracurricular sexual needs met through less than virtuous channels.]

The problem is that alpha men with a conservative bent go into business, they don’t write op-eds, work for think tanks or become political show ponies. A real alpha wants to be the guy behind the scenes manipulating the politician, not the politician.

[this premise is shaky. most pols are alpha. you have to be to survive the culling process.]

Well that’s what I was getting at and it from your comment it appears your sarcasm detector isn’t working very well. You might want to get it checked in that shop that works on old gaydar sets and that thing that modulates the tone of blog comments.

Corvinus: My gay friends have on more than one occasion talked my ear off about the number of closeted gay self-hating right-wing soldiers they’ve met at clubs and elsewhere. It’s a well-known type in the gay community and may still be an exception, but a larger exception than all of us in the straight community suspect. Check out American Beauty again, written by Alan Ball, who’s also homosexual: the Chris Cooper character is a perfect example of this archetype.

Joe Blow: You were being sarcastic? That trope doesn’t translate well across the interwebs. In any event, since sarcasm is saying the opposite of what you actually mean, I must conclude that you support Obama because of his masculinity.

If you believe the Marine Colonel character in American Beauty was a real archetype, you are mistaken. That fellow was at best a left wing charicature. You’ve obviously never been in the military. Your gay friends are excited about little to nothing fantasizing about the soldiers they’d love to screw. There is relatively little homosexuality in the military, especially the Army or Marines. Those homosexuals that exist, go about their business quietly. No one hunts them down or even cares. The more you talk, the more I realize why California is a basket case. You sound like a kindergarten teacher or a beauty contestant.

[heartiste: agreed. the “closeted gay” trope is a favored liberal pastime. perhaps a case of projection?]

In a few hours, Tyrone, I’m leaving to go to a wedding in Florida. In attendance will be my college friend who spent seven years of his life as a closeted homosexual in the Air Force. He has stories about many others like him. He votes “straight” Republican (so to speak) and sees no reason to do otherwise. I’m trusting his judgment about this archetype.

My other gay friends, who are a couple — these are the ones I referred to in my post — spoke a lot about this archetype. They lived in DC for years, which is maybe why they encountered so many military types.

In any event, these things are all anecdotal, so we can banter back and forth forever. And who ever said that anybody “hunts down” homosexuals in the military? That wasn’t my point at all.

The California jab was both unnecessary and an instance of faulty causality, since I neither hail from this state nor determine its policies. It’s also the first time I’ve ever been accused of sounding like both a supportive mother and a doe-eyed floozy, so congrats on your odd choice of name-calling victory. I trust that my writing style lets the other readers know that I’m neither.

I think I’ve got you figured out, Tyrone. If you disagree with someone, you marginalize him by pushing him into a low-status feminine identity. I hope I’m wrong. Let’s have real debate from now on, ‘kay?

I still don’t think you really know what you’re talking about, especially in regards to me or my political views. The Air Force is the one service which has a lot of homosexuals compared to the other services and they take over entire sections of a unit and form a sort of gay mafia. No repression there. Still, homosexuality is limited in the Air Force as well to under 5% if I had to guess. The military is just not infused with all this repressed homosexual tension that you are describing and a character like the Marine Colonel in American Beauty would never have made Colonel because he would have been seen as a whack job and would have never been promoted. I work everyday with very high ranking military people. I’m a former officer myself. All of them are highly intelligent and reasonable, even nice people. You still talk like a Kindergarten Teacher because you believe 2 dimensional Hollywood charicatures of the military and the vast majority of the leftist utopian tropes uncritically. BTW, are you that same fellow who posts as Student? You say a lot of the same kinds of glib, stupid nonsense, to the point that I’m incredulous listening to it. Have fun at your wedding. Stay away from NAMs armed with hammers as they may cause you to encounter cognitive dissonance.

Tyrone is right. Gays constantly look on the military as a glorious meat market, and fantasize about it being full of manly fags, but as Steve Sailer pointed out, most homosexuals outed have actually been butch lesbians. Reason being, if you’re an Army grunt, you really don’t have any chance to do the womanly things that gays like to do. The Air Force would naturally be expected to have the most gay men in it, given its comparative lack of rigor.

Sure, there are a few quite obviously closeted, in-denial gays that I’ve run into who are still patriots and conservatives but they are generally married to extremely obese women (well, they themselves are rail thin) and are seemingly happy enough. Most gays in the DC are full on lefty totalitarians (i.e., lawyers) who party fairly hard, they do have a look of beef jerky since the gay diet is quite unforgiving. The mistake may be made for thinking they’re military because the gay uniform is a seemingly military style haircut. Most of the conservative friends I made in dc who were actually doing political stuff were hard partying poon hounds or straight to marriage beta types. But if that makes you feel good then dig it.

Not sure I buy the facial features statement, but a heck of a lot of one’s appearance is due to how you present. (Isn’t that the whole lesson of Game?) Lib men dress and behave Young, Nonconformist (in that lockstep conformist way they all do), and Nonthreatening. Conservatives tend to strive to look Grownup, Respectable, and Serious. Naturally it makes them seem more masculine.

Gotta agree about the voices, though. Every single person on NPR has what I privately call the “faggot voice.” High-pitched, rapid delivery of words with drawn-out pauses, earnest tone, and more than a hint of the Valley Girl upturn at the end of every sentence.

Whereas commercial radio voices are loud, assertive, deep, and enunciate words clearly even as they avoid any millisecond of silence. (Except of course for the late, great Paul Harvey, whose pauses sometimes made you . . .

. . . wonder if the station had suffered a power failure.)

I think the voices, like the dress and presentation, are a matter of tribal signalling for lefties. “I am a Progressive. I am a Good and Smart Person because I am a Progressive.”

I have a theory that may be more accurate. Most of the people you see in your daily life are lefties. The right wing people are busy working somewhere and not sipping lattes at Starbucks. When you go into any government office for anything, you are dealing with lefties. Right wingers don’t like to work in government offices, they prefer real work.

Plus, the simple fact that there seems to be a vast majority nowadays on the left …. where they believe they can get more for less, something for nothing, an easier ride in life, more of other people’s money.

John, you haven’t presented a theory, just a hypothesis, and an easily disprovable one at that.

The right-wing Republican party, as currently constituted, is a massive apparatus constructed with the express purpose of shifting all possible money out of the public sphere into the hands of the wealthy private elite. You cannot argue with this, if you have been studying the reality of our government today.

Allow me to gently tear you away from your tattered mid-century prejudice and direct you instead towards the work of Matt Taibbi, an excellent Rolling Stone writer, whose takedowns of present-day right-wing greed are vitriolic and legendary. He’s the new Hunter S Thompson, except with better research. And not unlike the owner of this fair Chateau.

The right-wing oligarchs are MASTERS of, in your words, getting “more for less, something for nothing … more of other people’s money.” Not the leftists.

“the work of Matt Taibbi, an excellent Rolling Stone writer, whose takedowns of present-day right-wing greed are vitriolic and legendary.”

Hey dopey, the banksters are Leftists one and all. Taibi does some good work, but he is ideologically clueless (or rather hidebound) and never passes up an opportunity to miss the forest for the trees. Apparently neither do you.

Matt Taibbi is another shill who is selling beautiful lies for gullible ears. I am by no means a libertarian or right winger in the american sense, and i certainly don’t believ a cent of what the repubs or the koch brothers says… but here goes….

1. The backbone of the US economy and the money holders are not the hard industries but the soft industries….. king of them all is finance, followed by such things as law/lawyers, entertainment, customer service etc etc. Most of these industries which are the backbone of america now are left wing bases, the financial industry esp. ( of which i am part of ) hedge funds/ banks/ rating agencies / insurance companies etc etc are all centered on the east and west coast imbued with coastal liberal culture, staffed with internationalists / jews / ethnics / individualists / progressives / nihilists / rootless cosmopolitans etc etc.basically people who believe in the modern gospel of american liberalism and progressivism or blatant naked libertarian self promotion.

2. Modern liberalism/progessivism is nothing without the power and backing of corporate america (the most powerful aspect of american life is money, even moreso for left wingers since they control money becaus ethey are the orthodoxy ), for by using and by aligning ( even initiating ) with the dominant cultural and social dogmas they profit, the very reason why there are 10-20 millions of illegal mexicans on top of new 1-2 mil/yr immigrants coming to america is because big money wants them here, now if that is true then how come big money is conservative?. The answer is they are not, the corporations are a product and an amplifier of the dominating cultural and social order. This can also be verified by campaign contribution, for example unlike the vaunted big business is repub and right wing meme, the actual corporate contribution is havily skewed towrads the left wingers, John maccian got between 1/2 to 1/3 of corporate campaign money in 2008 compared to obama according to differing estimates. plus check this out http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

I think there is a modest correlation. But, to be fair to Heartiste, he didn’t claim it was fact but more of a gut instinct. Whether the same differences are observed in the Left/Right axis for economics or socially is debatable. I’d say it’s both and that there is likely a continuum. that is, the obvious homosexual is 90% on the Left and the less masculine male (smaller, softer, beta body language) is on the Left…those that are ‘average’ likely do fall somewhere in the middle – vaguely Left on some issues, vaguely Right on others. More masculine = more Right.

This has been my own observation. I was generally able to pinpoint someone’s political affiliation simply by dress alone. Physically, it was not as obvious but the more overt looks seemed to correlate.

As the OP noted, one has to factor in age, location, etc. You can have a tough looking young guy with tats and piercings and you know he’s a Lefty. Similarly, you can have a doughy, pasty guy with a neat haircut and suit and you know he’s a Righty. But, this is the exception rather than the rule. Even then, a bit of digging will reveal more. That is, the tough guy is simply rebelling against a draconion conservative father while the doughy guy was simply raised Christian.

Re: Union guys and working class: they aren’t Left in the academic sense. They know where their bread is buttered and are understandably suspicious of the monied classes. Socially they tend to be conservative but don’t express it much.

There is an interesting dichotomy with a lot of business types. Vaguely masculine: taller, power suits, lean but also vaguely feminine: soft and beta body language (talking mainly about the drones but even the exec class of large corporations where testosterone can be a liability due to feminine style passive-aggressive office politics). I figure it is due to being economically conservative but socially liberal…

Lawyers are interesting: socially typically Left. Economically, they lean Left (more government regulations means more work) but they are competitive…so they too are a mix.

I wonder if a person moves across the continuum he adopts more masculine behaviour (if moving Right) and vice-versa…a good part of masculine/feminine is perception as opposed to physical…Clint Eastwood, in spite of his height, is not overly masculine physically, but his characters are very masculine…making him more masculine overall…

Do nancy-boy metrosexuals install basketball courts on the White House grounds, and take meetings there? Do they execute smooth no-look passes? Do they take hard elbows under the basket and show up at work with bandages on their faces? Do they do push-ups on Easter Sunday during a game of horse?

All the above are President Obama. Do more reading/Web browsing before you open your ignorant gob.

yes basketball, game of super alphas, it is not a game for very tall uncoordinated circus freaks. football player regan, cia man fighter pilot bush senior, hell even dumbass Dubya was a cheerleader ( male cheerleader actually have to be good athletes ), even old ass ron paul was a serious track and field star athlete and still runs long distance today. IOW there’s a trend here, right wingers dudes seems to be more closer to the soil and therefore tend to be more active and generally more prone towards archetypical alphaish male related traits and attitudes ( and by implication the jump to CH game alpha is closer for the archetypal male conservative than a SWPL “male and female are the same” male ). just saying.

If Brevik believes in preserving his society and culture, then fair enough. But if he’s referring to the ‘others’ as savages and believes they are inferior to his race and culture then fuck him, he’s a racist. That’s the difference. I can respect someone who wants to preserve their culture and has pride in it, but I cannot respect a white supremacist.

As I understand it, Breiviks problem was with Islam and saw it as a threat to European culture & values – which it is, as it is inherently a supremacist religion and seeks to displace all other cultures.

Yeah, I’m sorry but everyone’s not a fucking clone of each other. Conservatives can wear scarves and skinny jeans if they want to, and liberals can wear three-piece suits if they want to– it’s a little something called CHOICE, ever heard of it?

Are you really so shallow that you’re going to judge someone’s socio-political orientation by the way they LOOK? Um, I have a lot of friends who are estrogen-rich, neck-bearded, thick-glasses-wearing human beings, and they are 100x more conservative than anybody on this site. And another reason why you shouldn’t talk about people you don’t know and pre-judge them is because you need to get to know people for who they really are– deal with it, haters.

So unlike all of you, I’m in favor of HUMAN RIGHTS– Go figure.

I just want to say that I consider this entire post a form of bullying and I don’t have to take it.

Yes the left and the right do have looks about them. I think about it a lot. I live in Bristol (UK) and this is a very liberal city. People look markedly different on all levels than they do in my relatively right-wing hometown.

On the chicken/egg thing, I think men of a weak composition and women of an unshapely or mannish composition will find shelter in leftism because it makes them feel better about themselves, as it destructs hierarchies that might make them feel inferior, or construct hierarchies based on the traits they do possess (intellectualism, ‘creativity’).

I myself, am admittedly the more softer/intellectual sort by nature, former leftist/SWPL even. Lefties I end up making friends with (based on other traits) assume that I’m going to placidly agree with them.

The white working-class are the natural rightists (i.e. not gay-friendly, anti-immigration etc but not necessarily religious). In this country, anyway. The downside is they tend to be degenerate proles, which the bourgeois left takes advantage of to discredit the right.

The thing about these right-wing proles though is while they’re far more honest and genuine, I’m just not like them in disposition, as much as certain things about them are respectable.

We have to respect and dignify the proles if anything is going to get done. This doesn’t mean loving them for “what they are” (i.e. diabetic couch potatoes), but showing them a better way, both in terms of physical and cultural health. Any majorly successful political movement has a positive vision for all classes of people. For example, it does the proles no good to continue to push more and more of them into college (and debt). We can’t make everyone into college material, per reality, so we have to develop a culture in which non-college grads can have a good, dignified life.

I consider Chateau Heartiste to be a part of that movement, because when men get game they come to respect themselves more, which, if it happened on a large enough scale, would be a major political development.

Funny you should say that. In the UK, the proles are naturally far more alpha than the middle-classes. They obviously fuck a different class of girl, but it’s relative to class-specific status games I suppose.

Until I read this I never realized what an exception to the rule I am. I am a wimpy guy. I am as harmless as can be. I am so far from the masculine ideal that I sometimes have guys screaming at me in anger (the other day in the parking lot these young guys yelled at me “you should have been a cowboy”). Yet I am a right wing, conservative Republican.

Sometimes it surprises liberals that I’m a conservative.I guess I share the vibe they have. They tell me I’m too cool to be a conservative or that I must be a moderate. One lib even said to me “you can’t be a conservative, you don’t seem like you would have a gun collection”. No I’m not the gun type at all. Yet on many issues I would be considered on the right wing fringe. For example I want all welfare cut from single mothers. I wouldn’t even mind if their bastrad spawn goes hungry. In the long run that hunger might save Western Civilization. If there is enough starvation and suffering lower and working class women might start marrying and having families with beta providers instead of having the bastards of bad boy jerks. The irony is that liberal welfare policies works against the dating and mating interests of those soft,non-masculine liberal guys who support those policies.

Liberal describing rightist “look”: “Beady-eyed troglodyte, large jaw and browline betraying a lack of intelligence and a simplistic black and white mindset that only allows him to take comfort in the absolute proclamations of either Ayn Rand or Jesus. And I’m being totally unbiased in my description here.”

I’m swedish, and I’ve identified several looks I find it easy to spot.

– the wimpy/gay liberal/conservative. Making up the main stock of the youth organizations of so called conservative and liberal parties. They dress very properly but are total pussies, their body language and faces give away.
– The hardcore leftist/vegan/whatever. They can vary in how tough they look but they all look like shit.
– The social democrat. Among the young people, generally skinny and just beta-looking.
– The reactionary, this is the guy you don’t fuck with.

If you sort the CDC data in an Excel table by the first column (“Neither overweight nor obese” – a bmi of < 25.0), you'll find that 9 of the bottom 10 states, which had ideal weight rates from 29.7-33.2%, voted for McCain in 2008. 8 of the 10 states with the highest share in the ideal range (all but Utah and Idaho) voted for Obama.

D.C. had the highest share in the ideal weight range, at 48.2%.

By quintile:
States 1-10: 8 voted for Obama
States 11-20: 8 for Obama
States 21-30: 6 for Obama
States 31-40: 5 for Obama
States 41-50: 1 for Obama

Maybe fat people become conservative in the same way that the fox claimed that the higher grapes were sour. They get upset about sex on TV and in music because it reminds them of all of the sex with beautiful young people that they no longer have access to.

People tend to get uglier as they get older. In industrial nations, they get fatter as they age, too. Their bodies start to atrophy and they get the feeling that civilisation is atrophying as well. Selective memory gives them the notion that things were better years ago.

[heartiste: break out these obesity/voting numbers by race first. otherwise, they are almost less than worthless.
ps there is no inherent logic that deems a time in the past could not be better than the present time.]

NAM obesity rates, being higher than that of Asians and whites, make the weight differences between Obama and McCain voters less pronounced. Have you honestly not noticed that right wing whites are fatter than left wing whites?

I wasn’t talking about which eras were best, I was talking about the tendency to project one’s personal decay onto the world at large.

Methodoloigally, I think in this case men and women should be analyzed separately.. As to fatness, I wonder if the underlying variable is not simply age – younger women are slimmer and more left-leaning, both statements are about averages.

Now, as to the specifics, FOX has taken an old approach and applied it much more vigorously, mainly : HIre women in the top 1% for smarts AND the top 1% for looks. This means (assume approximately uncorrelated) that 1 in 10000
qualifies. Make enough of these (there should be at least 10 000 in the
age range) a salary offer they can’t refule. Make conference tables of glass so their legs show. Or, in same cases, have them squirm on bar stools.
(Actually, you might have to screen for ideology to some extent but there will STILL be plenty enough candidates.)

Average mexican ( esp. indio types ) hispanics are like michelin tire man compared to the average white american. I will provide the links and data when i fell like, but till then just out for a walk at your local Fiesta Mart.

The amount of partisan name calling in these comments is entertaining. Many here are far too invested in politics.

I haven’t found that I can tell partisan allegiance from looking at people other than those who have political messages on their clothing. Which is tacky, but kind of useful, because it warns you not to talk to them at a party.

Former University of Edinburgh psychology Professor Chris Brand speculated on his blog that Breivik was gay. He noted the plastic surgery in his 20’s, pic of him dancing at a gay pride parade and unnamed Professor who had emailed him saying it was obvious from his camp demeanour.

In terms of conservatives having a certain look, that wouldn’t surprise me. For example there is recent research on male face width (linked to testosterone) and aggression.

[heartiste: it would be interesting to see the reaction if breivik was rumored to be gay. gays love claiming all sorts of great figures as their own; would they be as quick to claim breivik? rhetorical.]

no, let’s break it down.
First, geo is unable to comprehend what the host wrote because in his tiny mind, creationism is a thing that can never be anything other than a hateful epithet for right wingers. Because of this close minded attitude, “liberal creationism” makes his head splode because liberals are so open minded and associating them with any type of faith, except in failed economic theories, is unseemly. projection.
Second, the “we love science so much we majored in feminist scream therapy with a minor in socialism” set of libs who loves them some science are unable to follow their convictions to their ultimate conclusion, the HBD destination where all men aren’t created equal because the races are a little, um, unequal (to the HBD crowd) and thus if you love science so much, aren’t you racist because certain non-asian minorities seemingly don’t have the brain power as whitey. But no, the “all praise science” crowd doesn’t go that far, ultimately taking it on faith that everyone’s equal.
Third, evangelical atheists (geo’s head just exploded) and other Christian bashers are all like “evolution proves there’s no God, you fools, and I won’t bother to seriously answer your concerns about my theory (like the incomplete fossil record)…in the name of science,” when Christians are all like, sure maybe there’s evolution, evolution’s cool because God can let it happen but you know what, we believe that there are some holes in that theory that can be explained in another manner.” So, Thor’s riffing on another idea, that creation just happened and we’ve just been programmed to accept the past that’s implanted in our memories, sort of like how some creationists are like the earth was built 6000 years ago and the dinosaur bones are fakes.

@anon
“sort of like how some creationists are like the earth was built 6000 years ago and the dinosaur bones are fakes.”

Exactly. Propositions like that are “safe” because by construction,
NO EVIDENCE can disprove them. And an important facet of
any scientific theory (in both senses of the word, “conjecture”
or “carefully constructed and tested edifice and system”), is that
it be falsifieable, i.e. that it is subject to tests that – until you do them –
can go either way as far as we know.

But the one thing that is NEW in this thread – at least to me – is the
observation that the liberals believe in evolution – but only up to
the neck. The brain is not allowed to evolve (at least not after the
first appearance of Homo Sapiens) by liberal orthodoxy.

An interesting twist came to me recently. Apparently, Arabs are
notoriously low in musical ability. Some of this appears to be
hereditary, as in people of that ancestry growing up in the West.

Seveal takes on this are possible. A simple one is “Islam largely
prohibits music, so there has been no active advantage to
musically talented people in those parts for 1300 years.”
A more radical version is “Muslims locked up their women,
so travelling minstrels – de facto very productive in many
Western countries – did not have much opportuinity to improve
the genome”.

Well, Thor, there are some creationists who have that insulated view of their religion. What’s troubling is that evangelical atheists spend all their time mocking that small sub-sect of the religious.
Your arab music connection is interesting.
But the key to understanding the smug set is that they love to backpat and self-congratulate, so of course, their beliefs are scientificy and perfect and everyone else are a bunch of superstitious hicks. I find that evolution (e.g., Darwin) has some holes in it because the old theories came around before understandings in genetics and epigenetics. And because the evangelical evolutionists tend to not bother to answer serious counter arguments, such as explaining the cambrian explosion versus the “slow mutation” theory. Or, what I always found curious, quantum leaps in biology, where a mutation wouldn’t be useful until it’s complete. The answer is always…infinite time. The crazier evangelical-evolutionist counter-argument that I’ve come across is semi-religious punting of the ball, that aliens started it all. Ok, that’s scientific.

Oh dear. Lots of stuff. Obviously, there are lots of details still to be
worked out, there always are. And fossils are RARE, and the absence of some fossils proves nothing. And no, evolution does not “strive to perfection”, there is no perfection, not even a definition of one. Evolution is a process, it does not have any “goals” (except reproduction of genes, in a sense).

And the desire to back-pat and self congratulate is almost universal.

Now, obviously, there is nothing to stop anybody from believing that
somebody or something (aliens? God? whatever) somehow started the
sequence, way back 3.5 billion years ago or so. In fact, the startup process is where evolution is weakest, by far. In fact, until you have it going, it is not even evolution. But once you have the initial pondscum going (or slime mold or whatever) it is easy to visualize an almost inevitable path to a space-faring race.

how does pond scum develop bones? or a muscle? or an eye? These things aren’t useful until they’re fully developed, there’s no biological imperative for half of a muscle.
The lack of a fossil record should take some of starch out of the evangelical evolutionist’s slacks, eh? I’ve had discussions where people have called it a “law” of evolution, kind of striving to perfection. It’s not a law, it’s a theory, a theory that has holes in it and a reductio ab deus in its own right. Whatevs.
What is also interesting is to distinguish species adaptations versus species creation. So, French chicks develop high cheek bones and perky tits which is adaptation or selective breeding, not evolution because there’s no new species being made. They say that evolution is evident in single cell organisms, but are those examples adaptation or creating new species. Creating a new species, an evolution, is a bear turning into a beaver which is how I think the charts go.
Anyway, let’s get back to making fun of geo.

This is an old saw, and it is entirely fallacious. Pond scum, with protplasm, will develop limited motility. This is a gradual process. So is formation of e.g. an eye, you start with a photosensitive nerve in the skin and develop from there. Once you have specific reproduction (unlike e.g. fire), i.e. one that reproduces specific traits, the rest is easy – given a few billion years, the startup is slow, but the rate accelerates. There are several decernible steps here, one being controlled multicellularity, then differentiated multicellularity etc. But time plus evolution will find a way, this is empirical.

Not exactly. I am saying some creationists, regardless of where they fall on the lib/con axis, beliieve that. However, since you bring it up, I believe that a liberal creationist would be an avis raris.

So there are people – a democratic voting block – who think only the brain adapted to selective pressures while the rest of the body did not? And who are skeptical of the fossil record? Is that what you’re trying to say in some sort of right wing conservatard code? This sounds absurd.

I maintain that most creationist / intelligent design believers are social conservatives who vote Republican.

“So there are people – a democratic voting block – who think only the brain adapted to selective pressures while the rest of the body did not?”

No, the other way around. They believe that everything except the brain was subject to evolutionary processes since the races split 100,000+ years ago. They believe this based on faith alone, despite enormous evidence to the contrary. This makes them analogous to Christian creationists.

So it’s the other way around: there are people – a republican voting block-who think only the body adapted to selective pressures while the brain did not. Is that what you’re trying to say now?

And I’ll take the bait on this 100,000 BP racial splitting thing. But first, how many races were there prior to this date? Please list them and specify your sorting criteria. But without resorting to sociocultural attributes because defining races based on anything other than biological attributes would be a social construct wouldn’t it now huh?

And I assume you’re saying these original races branched off into other sub-races after this date. Please list them and specify your sorting criteria. Can you do this? If you can then please do so for the edification of us progressive liberal Oprah-loving volvo-driving progressives who slightly favor the hegemony of democratically elected governments over nepotistic corporations that operate behind closed doors.

And I take it your research indicates there are modern-day races that posses brains that did not evolve, even though the rest of their bodies did. What races are these? Again, specify your sorting criteria, without resorting to sociocultural attributes- if you even know what that means. You can’t, can you.

And just like creationists they demand impossible proof. Creationists demand every single fossilized intermediary link between apes and humans, you demand I walk you through the evolution of the races with uncanny precision. You both set the bar out of reach because you both have irrational beliefs.

It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the races have different intellectual capacities, just like how they’re different in so many other ways. The problem is, you have unreasonable doubt because of your liberal faith. Sorta like a Christian creationist.

I actually agree with Geo for a change. Except, the curious thing about
liberals is while they do believe in Darwinism (as do mos non-religious
conservatives and libertarians, including yours truly), they have this curious belief, as stated elsewhere, that mental faculties, tendencies etc are not heritable. This is of course ludicrous. Which is not to deny that like other
traints, environment also plays a role. But attempts to create the New Soviet Man always fail.

The heritability of traits is the core process of evolution. So to deny that intelligence and other personality traits are heritable is a denial of evolution in the brain. Of course the smarter ones will never deny it outright, but they will practically deny it by saying it is not worth consideration (see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil).

Genetic determinism is the flavor of the new millennium and it permeates this blog. But determinism of any kind is flawed reasoning. It fails to account for human creativity (e.g. learning game), the ability of lone individuals to tranform society (i.e. A. Hitler, K.Marx, H.Hefner) and it generally over simplifies everything.

But over-simplifying has its merits. Setting up binary opposites (e.g. liberal vs conservative; good vs evil) is crucial for quickly sizing up a new situation or threat, and making snap decisions, and therefore probably coveys an adaptive advantage.

I am unaware of anybody on this blog talking about genetic determinism
in a strong sense. But in a weaker sense, it is with us whether we like it or not. There is NO WAY, despite training, that I would become a conductor of a major opera, I’m just not wired for that. Nor is it likely that I could have become a world-class painter – or ball-player. A decent mathematician – sure, I am one.
A world class one – probably not, but with sufficient effort earlier in life – maybe.

Others have other weaknesses and strengths.

And the ability to change the world – well that is a separate issue.
It probably requires some minimum intelligence, hard to tell, maybe
>100 or >120, but nothing astounding. It is more a matter of tenacity,
and being in the right place at the right time, at least from the samples
you provide. For some other world-changing activities (Newton, Einstein,
Feynman, maybe Greene, to early to tell) a superior IQ is required.
Владимир Ильич Ульянов probably had – as far as can be determined – a very high IQ, but I doubt that Иосеф Виcсарионович Джугашвили did.

Please note I did not mention any women who transformed society. But I think the mighty Oprah could be a contender, and the beautiful Hillary…..well only half the population listens to them so never mind.

Thor, there are plenty of posts on here implying that race, intelligence and predisposition toward crime and poverty are genetically determined. And I truly despise this nascent merger of people taking the initiative to to improve their lives by learning game, and right wing political ideologues. It’s counterproductive – too much negative energy. This was not a part of the circa 2004 game society, but Mystery does seem like a douche.

And for the record anyone who assumes I’m a liberal is a flaming right wing ideologue. But I will step into the role for my own amusement on occasion.

To me this merger is incongruous with the underlying belief that I assume the readers of this blog have: that socially awkward males, who were born unsuited to pass on their genes, can learn game and thus mitigate their genetically determined unsuitability, and can inject their sperm into the wombs of the land and sire offspring, and thus pass on their socially awkward genes.

I don’t think geneticists have yet identified a gene for social awkwardness, or intelligence, or crime, or race, or musical ability. Too many people here are giving too much credit to the preliminary findings of genetic scientists.

As to the merger of what you call “right wing politics” and “game”, you would have to take it up with our host. But don’t confuse “right wing policies” which, like all policies, is about what “should” be done with discussions on factual matters. So far, for the last couple of years, I have not seen our host being FACTUALLY very far off point. Note that he, reasonably, sometimes hedges statements and offers them as probabilities or possibilities, not plain facts.

As to the proportions of various traits that are inherited vs. environmental, this is difficult to ascertain (as parents usually provide both), but NOT impossible, studies of adopted twins etc, give us a window, but even that is problematic as adoption agencies typically tries to “match” the probable genotype of the baby (read phenotype of the birth parents) with the phenotype of the adoptive parents.

And it appears beyond reasonable doubt that things like IQ (as measured), and various abilities inside and outside the IQ envelope (musical, artistic/painting, math, languages etc) have a genetic element. Not to say that this is fully determinative, environment plays a role too. But genetics (and probably environment too) can be limiting, see my previous blog. This should not reasonably be controversial, it is bloody obvious.

The truly contentious statements circle around whether the statistical averages for such things vary with race. This appears to be the case. In any case there is no particular reason to reject (or accept) this notion from idelogical grounds. My view of this is that the safest way out of this quagmire is to ignore it, and indeed “judge people by the content of their caracter, not the color of their skin”. This practical approach should be applied as is, no discrimination in either direction, and in particular with total deafness to charges of “unequal outcome proves discrimination”. (There are lots of reasons why unequal outcome happens, genetics is only one – why are nail salons very often run by Vietnamese [by origin] and donut shops by Cambodians [by origin]? It is unlikely to be genetic!) The same goes for “social awkwardness”, my guess is that this one is much more environmental/happenstance than genetic, but I could easily be wrong.
And Puhleese, don’t babble about “disparate impact”, just let the chips fall where they may.

With the awful diet and lack of exercise across the board in the western world, I am leery of the idea there are significant general differences in the looks of liberals and conservatives. Most members of both groups are unhealthy looking and overweight.